?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Being Three-Faced

Against Triangles

It has come to our attention -- or, rather, certain sensations have activated neurons in our brain -- that there are people who believe in unseen and immaterial beings.  This must stop. 

We refer, of course, to Triangle. 

Supposedly, this is a figure comprised of three straight lines, each pair of which meet at a point.  About this Triangle, all sorts of absolutist statements are made; for example, that its internal angles sum to 180 degrees. 

No rational person can accept such a belief. 

Oh, there are triangles that exist in the real world.  They are made of chalk on blackboards, with pencils on paper, with phosphors on screens.  They are scalene, obtuse, and right.  They are large and small.  They might be drawn in black or blue or red or any other color.  No one can doubt the existence of such triangles.  You can see them; touch them. 

But Triangle?  Or, as it is sometimes called, Triangularity?  Bosh! 

Real triangles differ wildly in material, color, size, even shape!  How can anyone say that a scalene and an equilateral are really the same "kind"!  What is a "kind," anyway?  Surely, the existence of so many different concepts of Triangle is enough to prove that Triangle does not exist. 

Furthermore, take any real triangle and look at it closely.  The lines will not be perfectly straight, even if drawn with a "straightedge."  Even on a screen, it will resolve into a ragged sequence of pixels.  Drawn in haste, the sides may not connect exactly, and so there may not be three angles, after all; and they will not sum to 180 degrees.  So much for the "perfection" of Triangle. 

Furthermore, in the well-known "love triangle," none of the three sides are being straight with one another, and they may be playing many angles.  (You sometimes hear triangulists complain that a love triangle is not what they are talking about; but as the great Prof. Snikwad has proven, this is mere Scholastic hair-splitting over fine points of definition.) 

But material things are all that exist.  So if none of these, not even the flying spaghetti triangle is what triangulists mean by Triangle, then their "Triangle" does not exist.  And all those "theorems" that purport to "prove" the properties and powers of Triangle are simply delusional thinking.  Where is Triangle?  Up in the sky somewhere? 

Triangle is nothing more than a mental construct, a meme generated by evolution, as Prof. Tenned has proven, because belief in Triangle has helped the survival of humans through such survival traits as trigonometry and surveying.  This means that before humans evolved, Triangle did not exist and such articles of faith as the sum of angles being 180 degrees would not have been true.  When humans no longer exist -- and especially when the last real triangle is eroded or erased by wind and rain -- the sum of the angles will no longer be 180 degrees. 

Lastly, and by no means least important, if Triangle really did exist, then we would be in the possition of judging real triangles.  We could say they were more or less triangular.  We could criticize the straightness of their lines, the completeness of their corners.  This would be judgmental!!!  Therefore, there is no Triangle. 

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
misterpengo
May. 17th, 2009 04:39 am (UTC)
Thank you.
One of the finest parody arguments I've seen on this subject.
pagadan
May. 17th, 2009 11:43 pm (UTC)
Wow! I hope nobody's head explodes.
able_spacer
May. 18th, 2009 03:17 am (UTC)
:: head explodes ::

Just idle curiousity here: what, exactly, prompted this rant?
m_francis
May. 18th, 2009 02:59 pm (UTC)
A sense of exasperation in the face of irrationalism elsewhere.
able_spacer
May. 18th, 2009 08:00 pm (UTC)
And that irrationalism is in regard to...what?

(I'm gonna hazard a Wild-Ass Guess™ here, and say that "God" is a likely candidate for the word that "Triangle" is replacing.)

m_francis
May. 18th, 2009 08:22 pm (UTC)
Not so much that, as the insistence that all things real are necessarily material. Too often, objections to "God" also deny the existence of numbers and propositions when you follow the logic through. Not to mention justice, love, beauty, and other universals.
able_spacer
May. 19th, 2009 12:46 am (UTC)
That's philosophers for you!

I tend to just stop at "all things material are necessarily real".
twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com
May. 19th, 2009 08:06 pm (UTC)
It's a nice analogy but proves nothing. Since the subject alluded is essentially impervious to proof, I'm not at all certain that is a drawback; sometimes a work just _is._
m_francis
May. 19th, 2009 08:32 pm (UTC)
Proof?
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Captive Dreams
m_francis
m_francis

Latest Month

June 2015
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taylor Savvy